The FA publish written reasons for Suarez's ban

[Major Tom]

A little harsh on navbasi I think there Major Tom.

 

No-one doubts the sensitivity of racism here, and abroad.

 

I think that the concern that a rounded discussion about race has been tricky in this country for some while is fair comment. And that isn’t healthy because language is a constantly moving feast.

 

Even the point that the literal description of a negro, as a negro, may be used in a non-racist context becomes lost, becomes there again, it might. The term “wog” now is a no-no, yet its derivation is that of Western Oriental Gentleman. Is “negro” going that way? It looks it.

 

I think that it is also fair to say that if you stifle sensible balanced debate on racist language you make things worse not better, which is what I inferred from the OP.

 

I note that neither the FA, nor PFA, nor Kick it out have proposed education classes for non-native English speakers (and natives if required!) to offer agreed guidelines on what is, and is not acceptable language.

 

In this respect I agree with those who criticise the FA for looking for victims and culprits rather than addressing two problems which this case has highlighted.

 

1.What on field abuse will get you an FA charge?

2.What words are deemed to be racist whatever context they are used in?

 

All sensible stuff, xerxes. If I came across a little harsh on navbasi, it was definitely not intentional!

 

Lessons can be learned from this fiasco by all parties. I daresay none will be though.

[Whelan]

There is nothing wrong with Political Correctness, just because some people are stupid shouldn't negate what is essentially a positive movement!

 

The problem is that we don't feel comfortable, and have never had a proper discussion because essentially, I think it is also linked to class and access to power. As I have said, to have a predominently white industry like sports media lecture on race is actualy quite appalling, how many other sectors could get away with such a low % of representation?

 

In my experience most PC problems are because of white people are either overeacting, misunderstanding or just plain ignorant!

[Major Tom]

There is nothing wrong with Political Correctness, just because some people are stupid shouldn't negate what is essentially a positive movement!

 

 

For sure, though it does go over the top on occasion in my view. The banning of 'black sheep' in the nursery rhyme Baa Baa Black Sheep is nigh on insane!

 

 

The problem is that we don't feel comfortable, and have never had a proper discussion because essentially, I think it is also linked to class and access to power. As I have said, to have a predominently white industry like sports media lecture on race is actualy quite appalling, how many other sectors could get away with such a low % of representation?

 

In my experience most PC problems are because of white people are either overeacting, misunderstanding or just plain ignorant!

 

Well said. Agree with everything there.

[LFC64]

Our problem was that our case for the non-racist meaning was undermined by our position that it was all friendly and affectionate.I think that it would have been smarter to accept that it was spiky out there ( Evra's taunts have been well reported) and simply to say that Luis hadnt intended a racist slur. That way the two claims hang together,instead our justified second claim was undermined by our own, improbable, first claim.

 

I felt the same when I first read the report. I was susprised the phrase 'negro' was only given the 2 polar interpretations because arguing 'friendly and conciliatory' in the circumstances can easily be undermined by a q.c. Surprised because as Rob Gutman points out the most normal use of the word is a descriptive neutral way without any racist connotations. 'Pal' or 'Love' can be said with genuine affection or ironically.

But if LFC's team didn't put this scenario forward then the panel were never going to offer it to us as an option.

[VladimirIlyich]

Ive been trying to educate a manc friend on facebook about what was really said,he is actually an ex copper and has been brainwashed into believing the word n****r was used several times and am trying to get over that the word admittedly used by Suarez was neg-ro and not nee-gro.

 

Does anybody believe that even the english pronunciation of nee-gro is far more condescending and highly ignorant than actually racist?

Negro is still used by a lot of older black americans and is printed on voting cards as an ethnicity instead of black.

[navbasi]

Ive been trying to educate a manc friend on facebook about what was really said,he is actually an ex copper and has been brainwashed into believing the word n****r was used several times and am trying to get over that the word admittedly used by Suarez was neg-ro and not nee-gro.

 

Does anybody believe that even the english pronunciation of nee-gro is far more condescending and highly ignorant than actually racist?

Negro is still used by a lot of older black americans and is printed on voting cards as an ethnicity instead of black.

 

Surely doesn't get worse than this. :whistle:

[torahboy]

Why didn't Suarez just come out with it and call Evra a fucking stinking, shit stirring, whining arsed, twisted, misanthropic, cunt smelling fucking n......n.......n...... non-Caucasian prick!?

[Redexile]

An excellent piece. It says very eloquently what most of us here already know, that Suarez was sacrificed on the alter of smoke and mirrors and unreliable testimony.

 

Yep and yet somehow the uk media seem to think many of us are supporting a racist act. Even here in SA (which certainly has many reasons to be sensitive about race) a lot of guys I work with are saying it's a stitch up.

I await the actions against Terry but honestly wouldn't be surprised to see nothing happen from an FA point of view.

[Trumo]

Here's something interesting about the FA disciplinary process.

 

BBC Sport - Football Association defends disciplinary system

 

Football Association defends disciplinary system

 

Friday, 6 January 2012

By John Sinnott

 

The Football Association has defended its near perfect record in disciplinary cases last year involving clubs, players or managers.

 

Its Independent Regulatory Commission heard 473 cases between December 2010 and December 2011, but only two of them ended in "not guilty" verdicts.

 

The FA's disciplinary system has been in focus after it banned and fined Liverpool striker Luis Suarez for racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra.

 

An FA spokesman said: "The FA only pursues cases if there is a case to answer. We must remember we are ruling on sporting merit. Let's make this clear - we're not sending people to prison."

 

There have been a number of high-profile cases over the last year.

 

Former Liverpool forward Ryan Babel was fined £10,000 by the FA for posting a mocked-up picture of referee Howard Webb wearing a Man Utd shirt on Twitter.

 

QPR were also fined £875,000 after being found guilty of two of the seven charges against them relating to the ownership of Argentine midfielder Alejandro Faurlin.

 

However, Stuart Gilhooly, a leading football solicitor, described the 99.5% "conviction" rate as "extraordinary".

 

With none of those 471 cases being overturned on appeal, he said the FA's system needed urgent review.

 

"A body with that sort of conviction rate needs to look at its procedures," said Gilhooly, a legal representative for the Professional Footballers' Association of Ireland who has worked on a number of key cases for the Football Association of Ireland.

 

"It is as if you are guilty until proven innocent and that is not in the interests of justice."

 

By way of comparison, Crown Court conviction rates were just over 80% in 2009.

 

Another sports lawyer, who preferred not be named, described the FA as "police, judge and jury all rolled into one".

 

He added: "Your chances of success before them, Uefa and Fifa are virtually nil.

 

"I seldom advise clients to have a personal hearing. Sentences can be extended almost without limitation."

 

After banning Suarez for eight games and fining him £40,000, the FA published a 115-page report into the findings of its independent commission.

 

Liverpool decided not to appeal against Suarez's ban, but issued a statement saying it was their "strongly held conviction... that the Football Association and the panel it selected constructed a highly subjective case... based on an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated".

 

Those 471 cases do not take into account wrongful dismissal claims, such as recent red cards involving QPR midfielder Barton, Wigan forward Conor Sammon and Wolves midfielder Nenad Milijas.

 

The FA point out that there were 50 claims for wrongful dismissals from the Conference National upwards during 2011, with 14 of those red cards overturned.

 

However, the governing body's disciplinary process has been criticised by QPR manager Neil Warnock after the FA dismissed the appeal to overturn his recent red card against Norwich.

 

Ex-referees Graham Poll and Dermot Gallagher both questioned Barton's dismissal.

 

"I'm surprised that the figure [99.5%] is so high," said Liz Ellen, a lawyer for London-based solicitors Mishcon de Reya.

 

"There must be a large number of potentially provable cases [that may end in a guilty verdict] not being pursued if the FA's criteria for advancing a case is producing an almost perfect record."

 

The statistics also do not take into account the 'no further action' cases the FA has reviewed.

 

"I'd estimate we look at thousands of cases in a year that we don't take any action over," added the FA spokesman.

 

"The counter argument is that, if we were bringing charges but not being successful in doing so, that we are wasting people's valuable time, wasting the game's money and not doing our job properly."

 

After the new year fixtures the FA looked at Warnock's and Barton's media comments following the latter's sending-off against Norwich - as well as Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger's reaction to Lee Probert's performance against Fulham. It took no action in all instances.

 

The FA's disciplinary panels are made up of three people - a chairman from the FA's panel, someone else who has played or managed within the professional game, and a third person from the FA Council, who has considerable experience in the game.

 

In the Suarez case, the FA used one of the country's leading criminal lawyers, Paul Greaney QC, with assistance from Dario Giovanelli of the FA. The chairman of the Sheffield & Hallamshire FA Brian Jones and former Sunderland manager Denis Smith were also on the panel.

 

But Gilhooly questioned whether the FA's appointment system created "fairness".

 

"I'm never happy where a body is appointing the judge and the prosecutor. You never see that in a court environment," said Gilhooly, who is a self-confessed Liverpool fan.

 

Despite the FA's high conviction rate, Ellen urged clubs not to be deterred from challenging charges.

 

She added: "Even where a charge is proven there is a wide range of sanctions available to the disciplinary panel.

 

"Therefore, where they feel aggrieved, clubs, players and managers should take the opportunity to put their case forward as this could reduce the sanction from a fine or suspension down to a warning as to future conduct."

[Guest San Don]

Honestly, this just show how stupid this has become. Fowler is getting stick because he 'blacked up' to go to a fancy dress party as Lionel Richie!

 

So does this mean a 'white' man can no longer be 'blacked up' to go to a party as a 'black' man?

 

Or is it just limited to anyone will LFC connections?

 

Not posting the link to the two paper protagonists. Im sure you can figure out which they are!

[Guest San Don]

Here's something interesting about the FA disciplinary process.

 

BBC Sport - Football Association defends disciplinary system

 

I stopped reading at this point "The Football Association has defended its near perfect record in disciplinary cases last year involving clubs, players or managers" (but no reflection on you, mate).

 

When you load the dice such that any appeal' will likely be deemed frivolous, you invariably cut down the number of successful appeals especially since the appeals process is overseen by the judge and fucking jury!

[navbasi]

Here's something interesting about the FA disciplinary process.

 

BBC Sport - Football Association defends disciplinary system

 

They just couldn't resisit adding this bit in could they...

 

"I'm never happy where a body is appointing the judge and the prosecutor. You never see that in a court environment," said Gilhooly, who is a self-confessed Liverpool fan.

[gumps]

If nothing else comes out of this, at least the stone has been lifted off the FA's cosy "independent" disciplinary system. Hopefully some reform will come of this.

 

How can a body be independent when the members are appointed by the body presenting the charge?

 

It's like when government commission a report on something. They always appoint someone whom they know will deliver the result they want.

[Guest San Don]

The FA are apparently concerned that Suarez may make his return to the LFC 1st team in the united fixture.

 

Ha, you couldnt make it up. What they going to do, revisit the ban and extend it for another couple of games?

[Redshadow]

Right; Independent Panel no?

 

"In the Suarez case, the FA used one of the country's leading criminal lawyers, Paul Greaney QC, with assistance from Dario Giovanelli of the FA. The chairman of the Sheffield & Hallamshire FA Brian Jones and former Sunderland manager Denis Smith were also on the panel."

 

So, allow me to get this Entirely straight yes? The FA's lawyer was assisted By one of their Own people Instead of operating well, 'independently' with No help like ours did yes? Further the so-called 'indepedent panel'? Well, let's take a look - The Chairman of Sheffield & Hallamshire FA for one & Former Sunderland Manager (& drinking buddy & Such a good friend that he wrote a forward to his book of Ferguson) for another. Says it all really - Now it all makes Perfect sense - Suarez wouldn't have got away from that little lot without a ban? If there was a nuclear apocalypse - They were out to frame him from Day fucking one.

 

And they call This Independent? Don't make me laugh - Surprised the laughable joke they call a 'sentence' wasn't that of death, dissolution of our club or permanent banishment from the PL with 5 successive relegatins for good measure actually in view of That little lot. Suppose we should count ourselves lucky that by Next week? The joke, sorry ban will be half gone. Only four games after that which he Should of only got at the Very Most in the First fucking place - Maybe if the FA had seen sense & done that? Our response would not have needed to be so strong & in turn? Our fans feelings wouldn't have run so high/us felt So bloody besieged from All sides; Then maybe? Just maybe in turn that travesty on Friday Night wouldn't have happened........

 

But rather than that? The Governing Body found such Concilliation Far to easy; No Instead? The FA just Had to look at the fire - Clap themselves on the back on a job well done & then? Throw in a can of paraffin, an extra box of matches & a couple of unpinned hand-grenades for Good bloody measure didn't they? Before rounding it off by pointing a Loaded Rocket Launcher at said fire & pulling the trigger as hard as they damn well could; Then? they're the First ones to act surprised when there's an enormous & long-lasting explosion - You couldn't make it up, mind you? You couldn't make up Their level of sheer & utter stupidity either. One another note? Two consecutive Friday Night games? When was the Last time we had that? Must have been the mid 80's IIRR when Rush scored a hat-trick at Aston Villa in one of them. Not sure if we've Ever played on Friday Nights before other than that. Interesting little fact either way...............

 

I'll tell you now though re all this? It Seems we've Really struck a nerve at FA HQ though with the sheer vehemence of our Defence; Not only are they now bleating about (& thus ensuring we're "warned in advance" should we need 'punishment' again afterwards if say Patrice Evra has a Nasty accident in said game) the possiblity of Suarez playing against Man U in his Second game back? But further? It seems they're Very upset with us exposing for what it is & by doing so destroying the cloak of invisibility enjoyed by their cosy little appeals system & happy 'sentencing' procedure/joke used on Suarez - No, they're Not happy bunnys at all; If you ask me though? Our club's Real crime? Is Daring to wake up & begin to vie for it's Old position at the Very top back instead of politely genuflecting with the rest before the FA assisted long-established 'masters' of the game from OT, shutting up & being part of 'the pack' in return for the odd bone tossed to us by them. Think for ourselves? Ignore them & their directives? Fight everything they do? Nope - That Won't do at all, not from us.........

 

Not at all - The FA do Not want us doing that - It's bad enough that the Mancs do it but upstarts like us? Another big club publicly humiliating them? They don't want That - No, no no; Not in a Million years, not in these fashionable anti-Liverpool times so? They then round on us like they did the Football League when the FL turned on Them re' the Premier League Split back in 1992 - Difference being? This time it's The FA that Will ultimately lose not us - We'll always have our supporters - Their incompetence & Stupidity? Will Not always be hidden from public view - This last few months shows that if nothing else hence They will be the ones to lose in the long run. Anyway on recent events? Our Real crime? Was Finally standing up for ourselves & making it clear we always will from now on - They do Not Like that fact at all, not one bit...................

 

Read the link below if you disagree & consider that the same newspaper has Already described the FA as 'Livid' over the Suarez T-shirts, 'smarting' from our reaction to the joke they call that 'ban' & 'Incredulous' at our further barrages aimed at them in January when we chose not to appeal. Oh & 'Bemused' as to just Why we're so upset. Read all that in the link, combine it with their recent ahem 'leaked' views of us then? Tell me they're not like an angry child that's had it's favourite toy taken away Or that we're wrong to fight them. Indeed, I think the link below? Shows precisely Why we Right all along............

 

Liverpool and Kenny Dalglish to be warned by FA over Luis Suarez and Patrice Evra race row - News - MirrorFootball.co.uk

 

Touchy aren't they? Funny, but that Whole article as far as I can see it? Contains not One mention of the Great & Sainted FA's Responsibilities, Only our own. Now then, I Wonder why That is?...............

Edited January 8, 2012 by Redshadow

[Mathewbet1]

..

[ngogswilly]

The FA are apparently concerned that Suarez may make his return to the LFC 1st team in the united fixture.

 

Ha, you couldnt make it up. What they going to do, revisit the ban and extend it for another couple of games?

 

haha wouldn't fucking surprise me if somehow they try and make that not happen. Luis will be banned for an additional 2 games for his statement or something.

[BCM]

haha wouldn't fucking surprise me if somehow they try and make that not happen. Luis will be banned for an additional 2 games for his statement or something.

 

To be honest the way this is going , id rather he didnt have to suffer that cesspit

[GUS]

In the latest development in the Luis Suarez racism scandal the band Black Sabbath have been told by Anti-Racist Alliance that they must change their name in Spanish speaking countries. Black Sabbath in Spanish is Negro Sábado. The Spanish word 'Negro' is the word that Suarez used to abuse Patrice Evra.

[BCM]

Il be amazed if the rest of Europe is'nt pissing themselves at the way racism is handled in this country presently.

[gumps]

"FA to warn Liverpool and Dalglish over Suarez race row

Published 22:59 07/01/12 By Paul Smith

 

Kenny Dalglish and Liverpool are to be warned about their future conduct by the FA.

 

English football’s ruling body are concerned by the comments and briefings from inside Anfield in the wake of the Luis Suarez tribunal.

 

Liverpool have reluctantly *accepted the eight-game ban meted out to Suarez after he was found guilty of racially abusing *Manchester United’s *Patrice Evra.

 

The FA is particularly unhappy about *Dalglish’s comments condemning the *handling of the case and his insistence on continuing to *protest the *Uruguayan’s *“innocence”.

 

 

Liverpool’s legal team had made a point of thanking the FA for their handling of the case prior to their verdict.

 

Although at this stage the FA will refrain from formally charging either Dalglish or the club with any offence they will remind them in the strongest possible terms of their responsibilities.

 

Any further outburst is likely to spark formal action.

 

The FA are also increasingly concerned that Suarez is likely to return from his ban to face Manchester United on February 11 at Old Trafford. They want the clubs to do *everything in their power to defuse the potentially *explosive encounter.

 

The letter is likely to serve as a warning for Dalglish and the club not to inflame the situation further in the run up to the game."

 

 

They really want their cake and eat it don't they?

 

In the run up to the game, the club should just do the bare minimum required regarding press conferences and such.

 

Kenny arrives, sits down in front of microphones and says something like..."No injuries to report, everyones fine, I'll field 11 starting and have 7 subs on the bench. Thank you"

 

Leaves.

[Guest San Don]

That prick mccormick, our 'legal representative' at the commission exceeded his remit, imo, if he went out of his way to thank them. That was clearly not what LFC would have instructed him to do. He was on board to present the facts and represent the club & Suarez not 'offer' his thanks to the commission!

 

These things get used against you and lo, so it is! The little shit thanked the commission and that's now interpreted as us being happy with the commission's set up etc.

 

Hopefully, that prick will never work on LFC's behalf ever again and after his woeful presentation, no other club will touch him with a barge pole either.

[gumps]

I think to be fair, he was caught up in the fact that we (ie LFC) were not aware under what rules the "game" was being played by.

 

Up until the verdict was released, a lot of people thought that this was a nothing case and the panel would come to that conclusion. So we were playing it nice and all that.

 

In hindsight, unfortunately, it seems, 2 sides out of the 3 "knew"what game was afoot.

 

I don't need to tell who who they were!

[Red '84]

Keith Duggan in the Irish Times

 

FA's judgment opens up a Pandora's box

In this section »

Di Canio's fighting spirit not dimmed despite his new-found sense of calm

Sterling effort to explain offside doesn't sit well with referees

Henry thrilled to be back

City in grip of strong man management

Chelsea close to sealing Cahill deal

No reprieve for United as Fifa rule on Swiss

SIDELINE CUT: Evra’s decision to go public means that the thousands of muttered, multilingual conversations that go on during the season leave players open to accusation and counter accusation, writes KEITH DUGGAN

 

MANY QUESTIONS emerged from the Luis Suarez-Patrice Evra affair, not least this: how do Alex Ferguson and Kenny Dalglish, both of whom are prize members of the Glenfiddich rare collection of Scotch accents, ever make themselves understood in their multinational dressingrooms?

 

The Football Association and Luis Suarez: Reasons of the Regulatory Commission is not the raciest title for a publication but, from the beginning, it is gripping in its examination of the brief, heated exchange which culminated with Suarez’s ban for racially abusing Patrice Evra during the match between Manchester United and Liverpool on October 15th.

 

Even the first few pages confirm what all sports fans know to be true anyway: you never really know what is going on in the game. Even if you have the best seat in the house, there is the game that you are watching and then there is the game that is taking place in the minds of the players and the collective minds of the teams involved.

 

So it was that a verbal skirmish after a humdrum corner kick in an autumn league match has led the hefty production of a 115-page report, a €48,000 fine for the Uruguayan, eight matches for which Kenny Dalglish must plan without the services of Suarez and the generally uneasy feeling created by the whole affair.

 

The first thing that jumps out is legal formality mingling with the spit and mud of a Lancashire derby. “Mr Evra and Mr Suarez are agreed that they spoke to one another in Spanish in the goalmouth” sounds like the beginning of a wonderfully promising cultural moment during the big match.

 

However, it would be about the only thing that the pair would agree on and the quick-fire exchange which followed – revolving around Suarez’s use of the word ‘negro’ and its connotations in Europe and South America – would form the basis of the case against him.

 

That Evra was left genuinely upset and outraged after his showdown with Suarez is indisputable. He was perturbed for the remainder of the match, went straight to Alex Ferguson after the final whistle and reported, “boss, Suarez called me a nigger” and was in an agitated state when he gave an interview to the French television channel Canal, where he claimed that Suarez’s comments were designed to provoke him.

 

“It still hurts. If it’s by the fans, I won’t say its fine because it’s still a shame but when it is a player playing the same game as you it’s even harder to accept. Especially when I think that he has played with team-mates who were my colour.”

 

Evra’s belief that there was racial intent in Suarez’s remarks comes through very clearly.

 

But the confusion over what exactly was said and the fact that none of the other players heard clearly what precisely was said – even those in the nearby vicinity were unaware of the exchange – leaves it possible to see the exchange from Suarez’s perspective as well.

 

Paragraph 162 of the report delves into the daily uses of the phrase ‘negro’ in Latin America and makes it plain that it can be a term of affection or of degradation, depending on the context of the situation. Suarez’s claims that his intentions during the exchange were mainly conciliatory are undermined by his admission that he said, “No hablo con los Negros”. The connotation of ‘negros’ here is immaterial: the fact that he declared that he didn’t speak to people of Evra’s skin colour is the crucial aspect. But the clipped language of the report cannot fully disguise the almost impossible messiness of the situation.

 

Like all sports confrontations, memories are blurry of who said exactly what and when.

 

There are several ill-advised interventions from a Mr Kuyt, although Liverpool captain Steven Gerrard is afforded no Mr in the narrative (is it because he is a Scouser?) as the report, in precise details, follows the row through the reminder of the match and into the dressingrooms where both Mr Dalglish and Mr Ferguson end up in discussions with the referee about the incident.

 

If nothing else, the affair throws light on the demands of basic communication difficulties faced by football managers whose stars come from various corners of the world.

 

For a time, the corridors of Anfield sounded like a foreign language school, with Kenny Dalglish explaining to the commission that his fluency was limited to ‘restaurant Spanish’.

 

The idea of King Kenny discussing the finer points of paella on a balmy Marbella night never comes up for debate on Match of the Day and yet here it is, smack in the middle of an English Football Association legal report.

 

In finding Suarez guilty of using “insulting words” towards Evra, the commission essentially had to believe the French man’s testimony rather than the Uruguayan’s. In paragraph five of the summary, the reasons for this are laid out. The finding was that the evidence of Suarez was “unreliable” and “unsustainable and quite incredible”.

 

There is something about those words which don’t sit well: they stop just short of insinuating that Suarez was slippery under cross-examination. Decades ago, Frank Richards wrote Billy Bunter and the Man from South America during his classic series about the Greyfriars hero that presented the foreigner in just those terms: shady, dodgy, not to be trusted. The bottom line is that the commission decided they could not trust the word of Luis Suarez and it is yet to be pointed out that that punishment will live long after the match ban has passed. (The monetary fine is hardly of much consequence.)

 

It leaves relations between Manchester United and Liverpool particularly delicate given that Suarez’s return coincides with the date of their next match. Evra was vindicated but he had to go through the turmoil of the hearing and has attracted as much negative comment as support for his stance; it can’t have been an easy time for him.

 

And, ironically, by exposing himself as he has done, the Frenchman now becomes an easy target for the terraces.

 

And Evra’s decision to go public means that the thousands of muttered, multilingual conversations that go on during the season leave players open to accusation and counter accusation. There is no doubt that Evra should not have to accept racially motivated insults. There is also no doubt that players in all sport say cheap and nasty things just to get under the skin of their opponents.

 

English football has laboured long and hard to rid its terraces of the nakedly racist mobs and to transform its game into a product that commands a television audience around the world. The Suarez-Evra flare-up is yet another hint of the tensions that remain on the field when football players from different countries clash with one another leading to exchanges that remain unseen even though they take place in front of an audience of millions.

 

The last paragraph of the report reads: “We conclude these reasons with the following comment. The charge against Mr Suarez was that he used insulting words which included a reference to Mr Evra’s colour. We have found that charge proved on the evidence and arguments put before us. The FA made clear that it did not contend that Mr Suarez acted as he did because he is a racist. Mr Evra said in his evidence that he did not think Mr Suarez is a racist. Mr Suarez said in evidence that he will not use the word “negro” on a football pitch in England in the future, and we believe that is his genuine and firm intention.”

 

You can bet Suarez will keep his lips firmly sealed after this. But that won’t stop the conversations that we never hear from taking place all around him.

[Mr T]

FFS, we've now been put on a par with Ed Miliband.

 

Labour MPs broke cover last night to call on Ed Miliband to ‘get a grip’ after a series of own goals led to claims that he may not lead his party into the next General Election.

The whispers against him surfaced in public for the first time as he came under fire for his political and personal skills.

Ominously for Mr Miliband, the criticism was led by Graham Stringer, the first Labour MP publicly to call on Gordon Brown to resign when his poll ratings plummeted. Mr Stringer said Mr Miliband must reassert his control over his party – and put a stop to Labour ‘incompetence’.

Sheffield MP Meg Munn said he could still be a success, but added witheringly: ‘Whether he will be is another matter.’ Others said he should be more ‘credible, less weak’, but Left-wing MPs accused supporters of David Miliband of plotting against his brother.

Mr Stringer lambasted Ed Miliband’s failure to sack Labour front bencher Diane Abbott over her ‘whites divide and rule’ race gaffe, comparing it to Liverpool FC’s bungled handling of the race row involving Uruguayan player Luis Suarez.

 

More...

'I knew it was going to be a fight and I relish it': Miliband hits back against his critics

Mr Stringer, who backed David Miliband in the leadership contest, said: ‘I don’t think on issues such as race we should look as hypocritical or as incompetent as Liverpool FC has done in the Luis Suarez case. Ed has got to get a grip and turn it around before the May elections.’

 

 

 

Read more: Now Labour MPs call on hapless Ed Miliband to 'get a grip' | Mail Online